Back to theodicy and David's theories (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Tuesday, May 04, 2021, 10:45 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The connection is the necessary food supply. I fully understand the line of inheritance we followed. There is more than one aspect to the process of evolving humans who then dominate the Earth with a huge population which must eat to survive. Take off your blinkers. […] Fully and logically explained above. A specially designed food supply cannot be denied.

dhw: What I deny is that there is one iota of logic in your belief that God specially designed food supplies for every single extinct form of life for the sole purpose of specially designing a food supply for H. sapiens. And you agreed when you wrote that “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.” Why do you continue to trot out the same attempts at justification of your illogical theory that you yourself have already demolished. Please let’s move on.

DAVID: I recognized there were different time frames for different segments of evolutionary history. I won't move on as long as you insist upon a segmented history of evolution as you try to tell me I am illogical, when you are.

You recognize different times for different segments, but you don’t recognize different segments, and that is supposed to be logical. I have never used the word “segments” anyway – that was another of your straw men. I use “branches”, because evolution is a continuous process of life forms branching out in different directions from their bacterial “roots”, but 99% of those branches (plus food supply) had no connection with humans, although – with an illogicality which you continually try to dodge – you claim that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

dhw: Your whole approach reeks of double standards. It’s OK for you to guess at a “humanized” vision of your God, despite its illogicalities, but it’s not OK for me to guess at logical alternatives, because these are all “humanized”, just like yours.

DAVID: You have never understood how your free-for-all loving, experimenting God is weak and purposeless and not acceptable to me as a valid view of God. We will never agree on it. And:
DAVID: Your logical humanized God is a weak form of the God I envision. Please accept our Gods are totally different and we can move on.

dhw: Of course I understand that my alternatives are not acceptable to you because you already have a fixed vision of your God. I do not understand why you think you have a monopoly on “humanizing” guesswork, and I do not understand why you should consider alternative purposes as “purposeless”! And why should I accept your highly personal judgement that allowing freedom of choice, or experimenting, or learning new things constitute weakness – especially when you agree that all of these fit in logically with the history of life as we know it?

DAVID: I've agreed your very humanized God fits your theories logically. We can leave it at that. The initial premise each of us has about God differs and we will always differ.

Another dodge and distortion which I cannot accept. In my alternative theories, my “humanized” God always fits in logically with the history of life. In your own theory, bolded above, your “humanized” God does not fit in logically with the history of life, but that is what you believe and so we can leave it at that.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum